Journal of Buddhist Ethics ISSN 1076-9005 http://jbe.gold.ac.uk/ What’s Compassion Got to Do with It? Determinants of Zen Social Ethics in Japan Christopher Ives Stonehill College Email: [email protected] Copyright Notice: Digital copies of this work may be made and dis- tributed provided no change is made and no alteration is made to the content. Reproduction in any other format, with the exception of a single copy for private study, requires the written permission of the author. All enquiries to: [email protected] What’s Compassion Got to Do with It? Christopher Ives Stonehill College Email: [email protected] Abstract Judging from pronouncements by contemporary Engaged Buddhists, one might conclude that historical expressions of Zen social ethics have rested on the foun- dation of compassion and the precepts. The de facto systems of social ethics in Japanese Zen, however, have been shaped largely by other epistemological, so- ciological, and historical factors, and compassion should best be understood as a “theological virtue” that historically has gained specificity from those other factors. Modern Zen thinkers and contemporary Zen activists tend to situate compassion 1 (Skt. karun. a¯; J. jihi) at or near the center of their representations of Zen. Through- out his writings, Abe Masao portrays Zen as directed toward an awakening — to s´unyat¯ a¯ (emptiness) — that equips the awakened with wisdom and compassion and motivates them to function compassionately through skillful means to liberate suffering beings.2 Similarly, many Engaged Buddhists build their formulations of social ethics around compassion, as reflected in the title of the first anthology of their writings, The Path of Compassion.3 This emphasis on compassion finds support from Mahay¯ ana¯ sutras¯ and Zen texts. The Vimalak¯ırti-nirdesa-s´ utra¯ celebrates a host of compassionate heroes: Of bodhisattvas there were thirty-two thousand, great spiritual heroes who were universally acclaimed. They had crossed the terrifying abyss of the bad migrations, and yet they assumed reincarnation voluntarily in all mi- grations for the sake of disciplining living beings. Great Kings of medicine, understanding all the sicknesses of passions, they could apply the medicine of the Dharma appropriately. They were inexhaustible mines of limitless virtues, and they glorified innumerable buddha-fields with the splendor of these virtues. They conferred great benefit when seen, heard, or even ap- proached.4 38 Journal of Buddhist Ethics Zen “records” (Ch. yulu; J. goroku) echo the broader Mahay¯ ana¯ celebration of compassion. In the Linji-lu (J. Rinzairoku, The Record of Linji), the young monk Linji (J. Rinzai; d. 867) thanks the head monk for the compassion he had expressed in sending Linji to question the master Huangbo,5 and later in the text Dayu recog- nizes the compassion with which Huangbo received Linji’s questions. Linji: “Three times I asked him just what the cardinal principle of the Buddha- dharma was and three times he hit me. I don’t know whether I was at fault or not.” Dayu: “Huangbo is such a grandmother that he utterly exhausted himself with your troubles!”6 Contemporary Engaged Buddhists base much of their ethical analysis and ac- tivism on not only compassion but also the precepts, which, like compassion, ap- pear in core Zen texts. The first fascicle of the Chanyuan qinggui (J. Zen’en-shingi; Rules of Purity for Zen Monasteries) positions precepts as the starting point of Zen practice: “Both meditation and the quest for the truth begin with receiving the pre- cepts (kairitsu isen).7 If one cannot abstain from error and avert evil, how can one become a Buddha or a patriarch?”8 Japanese Rinzai Zen founder Eisai (1141– 1215) quotes this line near the beginning of his Kozen-gokoku-ron¯ (Treatise on Promoting Zen to Protect the Realm), in which he argues that Zen monks should follow both the 250 precepts in the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya (J. Shibunritsu) and the 10 major and 48 minor bodhisattva precepts in the Fanwang-jing (J. Bonmo-¯ kyo¯; Brahma’s Net Sutra).¯ Japanese Sot¯ o¯ Zen founder Dogen¯ (1200–1253) writes in the Jukai (Receiving the Precepts) fascicle of Shob¯ o-genz¯ o¯ that the Chanyuan qinggui “saying that the precepts should come first (kairitsu isen) is the Treasury of the True Dharma Eye.”9 For centuries, Sot¯ o¯ Zen monks have received the six- teen bodhisattva precepts administered by Dogen,¯ with Mahay¯ ana¯ compassion ad- vocated in a subset, the three pure precepts (sanju-shoj¯ o¯ kai): the observance of all rules that eradicate evils (shoritsugi¯ kai), the commission of all things that are good (shozenb¯ o¯ kai), and the liberation of all sentient beings (shoshuj¯ o¯ kai).10 In Banmin-tokuyo¯ (Virtuous Action for All People), Suzuki Shosan¯ (1579–1655) lifts up both precepts and compassion when he writes that “Buddhist practice is to ob- serve the precepts strictly, never opposing the teaching of the Buddha and of the patriarchs; to banish the mind warped and twisted, and to become of good mind; . and to lead all people, uprightly and with compassion, to enlightenment.”11 While compassion and the precepts appear in these texts and modern discourse on Zen and social ethics, the de facto formulations of social ethics by historical Japanese Zen figures and the actual sociopolitical stances of Zen in Japanese his- tory have been determined by a range of other factors as well, which, depending on how one construes compassion, can be viewed as having augmented, muted, Ives, What’s Compassion Got to Do with It? 39 refracted, or even contravened this ostensible cardinal virtue in Mahay¯ ana¯ Bud- dhism. An inventory of those factors, many of which were highlighted by Zen priest and Hanazono University professor Ichikawa Hakugen (1902–1986), reveals several issues concerning the precepts and compassion vis-a-vis` social ethics, and indicates that compassion should best be understood as a “theological virtue” that gains sociopolitical specificity only when coupled with other constructs, ideolo- gies, or moral systems. Ichikawa Hakugen’s Critique of Zen “Peace of Mind” As a prominent postwar critic of his tradition, Ichikawa focused much of his writ- ing on factors other than compassion and the precepts that have determined Zen’s social stances, especially its historical lack of resistance to, if not valorization of, the sociopolitical status quo in Japan, as brought into stark relief during the impe- rialism and warfare of the early-Showa¯ period (1926–1945). Ichikawa traces those factors back to the origins of Zen. From his perspective, in the social and political chaos of the 6th through 10th centuries, Chinese elites were confronting two chal- lenges: how to secure personal safety; and, given the tenuousness of any apparent safety, how to live their lives while constantly facing the prospect of death. They had three main options for responding to these problems. The first was to maintain physical safety (anzen) by yielding to the powerful, avoiding conflict, and seek- ing peace at any price (kotonakare-shugi). The second was to unite with others to resist and eliminate the oppressive conditions that jeopardized their safety. The third option was what Zen refers to as anjin (Ch. anxin), “pacifying the mind” or, translated nominally as a telos, “peace of mind.”12 In the third approach, rather than maneuvering to guarantee one’s physical se- curity or, more broadly, social peace, one cultivates a type of psychological secu- rity, a mental peace. As Ichikawa puts it, “The Way of peace of mind (anjin) is pursued and attained as an existential wisdom by means of which one avoids being crushed by the dangers and insecurity that emerge in the tumult and vicissitudes of actuality.”13 To attain this peace of mind one must embrace whatever one encoun- ters: “The wisdom of peace of mind does not flee in the face of a lack of safety or the onslaught of overwhelming danger; rather, it steps forward and receives such things. As the expression [by Ryokan¯ (1758–1831)] goes, ‘When you encounter a disaster, it is good to meet it [fully]; and when you encounter death, it is good to meet it [fully]’.”14 This is “the path of attaining the wisdom through which one can accept, just as it is, whatever misery or impending danger of death one might encounter, and thereby live a fulfilled life in each situation.”15 More specifically, “One greets and accepts each situation, without hating or avoiding it, and by be- coming one (narikiru) with that situation, one lives a life characterized by peace of 40 Journal of Buddhist Ethics mind.”16 These constituents of “peace of mind” — not judging or reacting to situations, accepting whatever situation one encounters, “becoming one” with each situation — appear repeatedly in Zen texts. For example, in the Xinxinming (J. Shinjinmei; Inscriptions on Trusting in Mind), Sengcan (d. 606?) declares, “If you wish to see it before your own eyes, have no fixed thoughts either for or against it. To set up what you like against what you dislike — this is the disease of the mind. Try not to seek the true, only cease to cherish opinions. As soon as you have right or wrong, confusion ensues, and Mind is lost.”17 In his Fukan-zazengi (Universal Recommendation of Zazen), Dogen¯ commands his disciples, “Setting everything aside, think of neither good nor evil, right nor wrong.”18 Ichikawa on Zen “Accomodationism” Insofar as Zen peace of mind requires acceptance of whatever one encounters, whether objects, events, or social conditions, one functions in the world through what Ichikawa refers to as the “principle of according with things” (sokubutsu- shugi, literally, “according-with-things-ism”), an “accordance with the principles of things as a kind of naturalism.”19 Bodhidharma terms this approach suiyuan- xing (J.